Guess the ND in the parking lot was not important?

[RedneckReject]

What if all of the blame can be attributed to the "victim"?

I honestly don't see how it could in this case. The memo sent out regarding the illegal policy may or may not have been because of the ND. Regardless of that it was never stated in the email.

You don't just adopt an illegal policy because someone did something dumb. That would be like adopting a policy that states you refuse to hire Asian people because a previous Asian employee took money out of a cash drawer. It doesn't work that way. If they wanted to fire him for the ND then fine. They should have fired him for it right then and there. They should not have put an illegal policy in place and then waited two months to terminate him for an entirely different reason. Let's go beyond that. Let's say for some odd reason they chose to wait two months to terminate over it. Why didn't they just tell him that instead of telling him it was due to the fact that he may or may not have an unauthorized weapon in his vehicle? I would venture a guess and say it's because the ND had nothing to do with his termination.

 

[bwframe]

Then I think you'd be insulting Guy's intelligence.

Really, because I asked a question? Questions are insulting?

The only real info that we have is that some dude ND'd his gun one day. Then in an unrelated (a documented point by said employer) event, he was fired for not directly answering an illegal question. And we know that Guy Relford is on the case. Not only that, but we have evidence via forums that he's taken it upon himself to become an expert on the new IC in question...

(a documented point by said employer)
"evidence via forums" ?
I must have missed these. Got a link?
As long as my questions aren't insulting, anyway.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

An illegal policy is an illegal policy - no matter how you attempt to justify it.

This case will likely clarify that even if a company feels very strongly that they have a justification to violate sb 411 - they do not, and can be hit with civil action for doing so.

That is one giant reason that this case is a perfect first for sb 411 - because it gets so much out of the way in one suit.

The ND, while being a bad thing in and of itself, is actually a second amendment supporters gift in disguise.

 

[bwframe]

I honestly don't see how it could in this case. The memo sent out regarding the illegal policy may or may not have been because of the ND. Regardless of that it was never stated in the email.

...Let's say for some odd reason they chose to wait two months to terminate over it. Why didn't they just tell him that instead of telling him it was due to the fact that he may or may not have an unauthorized weapon in his vehicle? I would venture a guess and say it's because the ND had nothing to do with his termination.

What if the termination was actually the result of customer and or employee complaints that took time to fester up? (He goes or we go sort of complaints.)
What if the email was a foolish attempt to avoid ill will toward said customers and or employees?

 

[bwframe]

The ND, while being a bad thing in and of itself, is actually a second amendment supporters gift in disguise.

Right, a win the battle, loose the war, sort of gift.

 

[RedneckReject]

What if the termination was actually the result of customer and or employee complaints that took time to fester up? (He goes or we go sort of complaints.)
What if the email was a foolish attempt to avoid ill will toward said customers and or employees?

That is a possibility. You're absolutely right. However if that were the case why did they give him an entirely different reason? Why did they give him a reason at all? A reason for termination isn't required in Indiana. And that still doesn't make the email any more legal. Yes, perhaps they were trying to cover their own rear ends. I would probably want to cover mine if I were them. The problem is that they went about it the wrong way.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

What if the termination was actually the result of customer and or employee complaints that took time to fester up? (He goes or we go sort of complaints.)
What if the email was a foolish attempt to avoid ill will toward said customers and or employees?

#1 A hypothetical that is not supported by any information we have been given about the incident

#2 The memo, even if it was a foolish attempt to avoid ill will towards a customer, did not comply with sb 411. I will state this point I have made in the past again... sb 411 states nothing of termination, and termination is not required for civil action. Even if they did not fire him, they did not comply with sb 411, and are therefore open to civil action.

Right, a win the battle, loose the war, sort of gift.

Winning the battle to such a degree that companies everywhere make the conscious choice not to violate sb 411 - even if they "feel" they have a good reason, because the outcome will already have been spelled out.

 

[RedneckReject]

Here's a fun fact! Google "ADM enforcement employee handbook". It has all kinds of fun tidbits about what employees can or cannot have in their possesion. This tells me that their email was just a confirmation of an already in place illegal policy. Certainly not a new policy put in place over someone's ND.

 

[bwframe]

...A hypothetical that is not supported by any information we have been given about the incident

The only way we even know of the ND was via outside sources, as if it were to be swept under the rug. That makes one wonder if the information we have been given is complete or correct.

Winning the battle to such a degree that companies everywhere make the conscious choice not to violate sb 411 - even if they "feel" they have a good reason, because the outcome will already have been spelled out.

And at the same time loosing the hearts and minds of those who would question why poor/dangerous gun handling is not legit grounds for termination of an armed security guard?

 

[RedneckReject]

The only way we even know of the ND was via outside sources, as if it were to be swept under the rug. That makes one wonder if the information we have been given is complete or correct.

It wasn't a reason given for being terminated. I'm not going to go into great detail about every single time I screwed up at work if I was told I was fired for being female. I'm going to assume I was fired for my gender, not for any errors I made

And at the same time loosing the hearts and minds of those who would question why poor/dangerous gun handling is not legit grounds for termination of an armed security guard?

No one is saying that poor/dangerous gun handling isn't grounds for termination. But it's not the reason FOR the termination.

 

[bwframe]

...No one is saying that poor/dangerous gun handling isn't grounds for termination. But it's not the reason FOR the termination.

The news already has implied such. That is how we learned of the ND.

 

[RedneckReject]

The news already has implied such. That is how we learned of the ND.

Very true. The news has implied that. However I watched the news footage on Fox where they brought that up. That actually showed the written warning he was given. It stated that he was neither suspended nor terminated. So, how is it that the ND was the reason for termination?

 

[bwframe]

...So, how is it that the ND was the reason for termination?

All in stuff we don't know. That is why I'm posing questions as opposed to some who suggest that their opinion is fact.

 

[RedneckReject]

All in stuff we don't know. That is why I'm posing questions as opposed to some who suggest that their opinion is fact.

The fact is that the paperwork said he wasn't terminated for the ND. That isn't an opinion. It was right there in black and white.

 

[bwframe]

The fact is that the paperwork said he wasn't terminated for the ND. That isn't an opinion. It was right there in black and white.

My mistake. I must not have seen the same news video as you. Do you have a link to this "right there in black and white"?

 

[RedneckReject]

News Distribution Network - Shared Video

Right about 1:30 into it they show that actual written warning he was given. If you zoom in you can clearly see "suspension effective (null spot)" and "termination effective (null spot). If they wanted to fire him over it, I would think this paperwork would show it. They did also fail to mention that was was not fired immediately after the incident but 56 days later.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

All in stuff we don't know. That is why I'm posing questions as opposed to some who suggest that their opinion is fact.

No, you are implying wild speculations that oppose any information we have been given.

You are boldly accusing the poster of the original thread regarding this incident of a lie without any information to back up your claims.

Maybe the NG did not even happen, and everyone made it up *gasp* Sounds ridiculous though, right? Because the information we have suggests otherwise, and the plausibility is small.

The case is not about whether unsafe gun handling is grounds for termination. Anyone who sees it this way, does not comprehend the situation or the grounds for this suit. When our legal system comes into play to establish the teeth in legislation like sb 411, it would be unwise to decide "hey we better not, because ignorant people are confused". This case is about sb 411, and the repercussions of an employer functioning outside of the legal bounds it establishes. The only reason an attempt has been made to make the NG relevant, is because said employer has no leg to stand on.

Here is a big hint: the news implies irrelevant things all the time - because it sells. Many news companies hold their bottom line above honesty. In many situations, the journalist that writes an article has no comprehension of the true legal relevance of information. If you want to win over the hearts and minds ignorant enough to believe garbage of the type, I suggest you start at the news source.

I say we attempt to explain the situation to ignorant people - and if they do not get it, those hearts and minds will never be won anyway. Not fighting always loses the war.

 

[RedneckReject]

I say we attempt to explain the situation to ignorant people - and if they do not get it, those hearts and minds will never be won anyway. Not fighting always loses the war.

Well said. I reckon it's just a little difficult for me to understand how one simply cannot comprehend the situation. My brain doesn't function that way

 

[bwframe]

I say we attempt to explain the situation to ignorant people - and if they do not get it, those hearts and minds will never be won anyway. Not fighting always loses the war.

Well said. I reckon it's just a little difficult for me to understand how one simply cannot comprehend the situation. My brain doesn't function that way

The ND may well have tainted what could possibly be "won."
Those that are ignorant of the general public and other side's hearts and minds are living with their heads in the sand. That doesn't even address those on the pro 2A side who have little tolerance for foolish/dangerous gun handling.

 

[RedneckReject]

The ND may well have tainted what could possibly be "won."

No not really. The law is very clear. Not just sb411 but any law. They are what they are. No one is asking whether or not the ND was stupid or preventable. No one is asking whether or not he should have been fired for it or not. The question is: was he fired for having a weapon in his vehicle?" The answer is yes. Can he prove it was for that reason and not for the ND? Again, the answer is yes. My opinions, your opinions and anyone else's opinions on what SHOULD have happened due to the incident don't matter. What matters is what DID happen. Whether we like it or not that's the way the judicial system works.